Retraction of Séralini GMO study is attack on scientific integrity
- Reason given for retraction - "inconclusiveness" - is unprecedented and violates norms of scientific publishing
- It is unjustifiable to retract an entire paper because it contains some “inconclusive” findings
- Conclusive findings are rare in science
- Attack on scientific integrity could put public health at risk
- Study must be reinstated
We, the undersigned international scientists and experts, condemn the retraction by Dr A. Wallace Hayes, the editor-in-chief of the scientific journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), of the pioneering study of Séralini et al. (2012) on a genetically modified (GM) maize and its associated pesticide, Roundup.
Dr Hayes, FCT, and the journal’s publisher Elsevier must reinstate the Séralini study and provide a full public apology to Professor Séralini and his team.
This decision is inequitable and unacceptable. Not only, it questions the independence of the scientists but in more it implies that the reviewers which accepted the publication at first instance did not make their work correctly. Given the stronger and stronger demand on behalf of the publishers to recruit reviewers, I wonder if I am going to continue to review publications for Elsevier.
Patrick DABERT
It is essential to continue this work and the results are disturbing to human health. (Il est indispensable de poursuivre ces études qui sont inquiétantes pour la santé publique).
HANNE Marie-Elise
Science has its real values when it serves people who knows nothing about it but still get affected by harms created by chemicals.
Chalani Rubesinghe
This is an instance of travesty of scientific ethic. Corporatocracy cannot be tolerated in any discipline of science.
Debal Deb
Instead of retracting a paper with alledged inconclusive results, should not have been the logical reaction to provide additional funding for independent testing? The issue is too serious to be dealt in the opaque way how the editor of the journal has handled it.
Manuel Ruiz Perez
The study by Séralini et al. provides relevant information about the risks of the transgenic NK603 maize, and to the undeniable hazards of glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides, which are intrinsic part of the cultivation of transgenic crops. The retraction of the study was clearly based on political and economical interests/pressure, as it does not have a scientifically sound justification. Science is not built upon "definitive" studies. In fact, within a scientific framework, a hypothesis is never definitive; it can always be re-tested and generate new, more robust knowledge. This is what should be done in this case. The article should be reinstated, and its findings can be confirmed or contested by replication and new studies. It is shameful that, in this day and age, commercial interests still have so much influence in scientific publishing. Still, we shall continue in the pursue of truth.
Daniel Ferreira Holderbaum
The science community simply must remain open and honest. We just cannot suppress information or findings from research, whether you agree with it or not. If you disagree, then disprove the other research.
John Stack
Science has to be built on honesty. The paper must be reinstated.
This is reminiscent of trials of Galileo by the hands of the Vatican. These tactics bring shame onto the scientific fraternity and erode the confidence of the public in the scientific process.
Dr Shideh Pouria
It's about time for private interests and companies to stop meddling in what is "science". The scholarly community has its own processes of validation and refutation, which should not be interfered with by the possibility that new knowledge might affecting the profits of companies which clearly have little if any regard for public health or the public interest.
Gerardo Otero
Completely unsatisfactory and misleading
Alexander Wetten
The retraction means, not only, agression against scientific integrity and democracy, but also indicates how the immediate economic and financial interest has severe influence on scientific journals and some "scientific" groups. It is a criminal attitude. Truth and ethical values have to be considered as more important than money. The article must be reinstated immediately. Mohamed Habib
MOHAMED HABIB, PhD
The study by Séralini et al (2012) is an important piece of work that, instead of being unfairly retracted, should be the trigger of further experimentations worldwide in the field of long-term toxicology of agricultural edible GMOs and associated pesticides. To this purpose, GMOs seeds and plants should be made readily available to investigators for independent evaluation of their safety.
Marc Mathieu
The retraction is a shameful violation of scientific and publishing integrity by economic and political interests.
Donald R. Davis
The retraction of this paper is a scandalous episode in the history of scientific research, which must remain independent of vested interests.
Peter Romilly
Every study is inconclusive. It's ridiculous.
Minjung Cho
Science is still not immune by politics and unfair business.
Resham Babu Amgai
As a published author, I know the power a publisher has over the journals it prints. It seems the real pressure originated from the published to the editor of the journal, FCT. The reasons for FCT-retraction are political, and not scientific, by any measure. They use the term "peer-review" to describe their political action. The peer-review process had already occurred BEFORE publication, not AFTER publication.
Hank Keeton
If we smell a rat, we must be clear about finding the rat.
The only substantial reason FTC offered to the Seralini study was the number of rats. The species had already been used by Monsanto.
This is blatant politicization of the scientific process.
The excellent work of Professor Seralini and his colleagues should be published in all the independent scientific journals of the world, as a form of protest and resistance against pressure of transnational corporations
Tomás Enrique León Sicard
The fascism of industrial elites must not be permitted to stamp out truth. Truth makes us safer; hiding from the truth is a catastrophe in the waiting.
Murray Thompson
This is a violation of fundamental ethics of publication.
Channa Jayasumana
